CYIL Vol. 4, 2013

JAN ONDŘEJ CYIL 4 ȍ2013Ȏ investors. Some authors 49 propose to limit the uncertainty for private investors by substituting the Moon Agreement with a new treaty. As another alternative solution they propose concluding a multi-lateral treaty of the space powers, or even the option of unilateral state recognition of the claims of its nationals. These views can be argued against 50 by the fact that a replacement of the Moon Agreement would inevitably take a long time. It would also lead to chaos and uncertainty in the legal environment in respect to the Moon. On the contrary, it could dissuade the private sector from exploration and exploitation of natural resources of the Moon and, in consequence, from the exploration and use of outer space. It can be added that the Moon Agreement of 1979 does not forbid ownership but only requires the states parties to establish an international regime for regulation of the exploitation of natural resources of the Moon as soon as such exploitation turns feasible in the near future. It is evident that a certain regulation of the activities of private legal persons or individuals by the states shall be necessary. The wording of Article 11, paragraph 7, letter d) explicitly requires that the future regime will lead to an equitable sharing by all states parties in the benefits derived from those resources, whereby the interests and needs of the developing countries, as well as the efforts of those countries which have contributed either directly or indirectly to the exploration of the moon, shall be given special consideration similar to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea of 1982. The provision of the Moon Agreement is therefore basically more advantageous for the developed countries than a similar provision in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea of 1982. There is no doubt that the more technologically advanced states will fix an advantageous position in the future regime which will include also legal persons and individuals. 5.3 Ownership of results of intellectual activities in outer space especially in relation to inventions The issues of intellectual property rights also arise in relation to outer space . On board the International Space Station (ISS), for example, various medical and biological experiments are to take place, as well as experiments in the physical sciences or pharmaceutical sector. 51 Legal protection of the results of intellectual activities in space, for example the patents, give rise to problems at first glance. As Kučera 52 notes, industrial property rights and copyright are territorially restricted . They arise and protection of them is provided only for the area of a particular legal order, for the territory of a particular state . This is also caused by the nature of the 49 See Smith, M. M, Dasch, P., Pierce, A. in: Masson-Zwaan, T. Other Report, IISL Colloquium, 4-8 October 1999, Amsterdam. Journal of Space Law , 1999, No. 2, p. 147. 50 See Ram, J. Twenty Years of the Moon Agreement : Space Challenges for Returning to the Moon. Zeischrift fur Luft und Weltraumrecht , 2005, No. 2, p. 260. 51 See Balsano, A. M., de Clercq, A. The Community Patent and Space-related Inventions. Journal of Space Law , 2004, Vol. 30, p. 2. 52 See Kučera, Z. Mezinárodní právo soukromé . 6. opravené a doplněné vydání. Brno : nakl. Doplněk, 2004, p. 281.